I have been out lately - I have have other hobbies and have been in Omaha watching some great college baseball. In any case, some pretty interesting reading since I got back. Being fairly new to the group, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'll tee it up again.

It seems as though having a level of reverance for President Lincoln opens the door for a certain amount of mockery. Although I would certainly not grant him sainthood, could somebody explain to me why I shouldn't hold Lincoln in high esteem for preserving the Union. I'm not looking for a fight - just a discussion.

A week ago I would have been glad to have that sort of discussion with you...discussion, not fight. Now however, I don't believe I am the one to do it.. maybe someone else will weigh in on this one..
It is a good question and I hope you find a taker...maybe I will join in later depending on the kind of discussion you get going

Although I would certainly not grant him sainthood, could somebody explain to me why I shouldn't hold Lincoln in high esteem for preserving the Union.
With you on that Tim. The man, in retrospect, made some major booboos and some questionable war-time moves but, without him, this nation would not be what it is today: top o' the world!

We've had the extreme good fortune (providence?) to have had the right people in the right place at the right time. At a particular early crisis, we had Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson and many other less-well-knowns who set about designing a new country. Lincoln followed their pattern. What we would be if he hadn't been there is impossible for me to contemplate.

He earned whatever degree of esteem anyone choses to give him. Some can consider him a saint, if they'd like, I prefer to consult history.

Ed - I hope you do weigh in. I feel fairly strongly the same way that Mike and ole feel. I don't really like to get into "what ifs", but I probably could be persuaded to believe that it was Divine Intervention that put Lincoln where he was when he was.

I know you probably have a different opinion, and if so, I wouldn't mind hearing it. I wonder if it is because you are in Springfield and sick of the exploitation that occurs with any type of tourist destination.

Again, I'm not interested in starting a fight - but many men have died protecting the right for us to share our opinions in friendly discussions. I would like hearing from you or anyone else that is not enamored with Lincoln, and why.

Well, I will point out that of the opinions you have received so far, no one has told you why Lincoln should not be admired, but rather why he should... That's about par based on my experience.
Some of my feelings toward "Da Man" are certainly based on the fact that I live in Springfield, and yes I do get sick of the Lincolnmania that passes for history around here where HE is concerned. Some of my bias, and that's what it is a bias...we all have them.. is based on the fact that I grew up in the southeast United States and have a pretty different perspective about things than you other posters.

When I think of Lincoln, I think of the Maryland legislature arrested to prevent a vote on Secession..., I think of the newspapers shut down to prevent or silence criticism of the Administration...hmmm anything like that goin on today? How many pictures of caskets have you seen coming home from Iraq and the Stan in the newspapers or on TV? Ever wonder why?
I consider troops firing on civilians in New York because they didn't want to participate in a war....then I think of Kent State..
Read his 1st Innaugural and see what he has to say about slavery...then read about what he says about the collection of taxes and what would cause him to invade.

Lincoln has been sold as a "man of the people"...think of the myths you have heard all your life...reading by firelight, walking 20 miles to return a nickel overcharged a customer and the like... what were his politics...he was a Whig...what was their platform? ... In his law practice he represented the railroads.. he bought some land in Nebraska using insider information .. sure he rode a circuit..all country lawyers of that era did.. but he got paid for his services, they weren't free In short there are so many myths about him, it is almost impossible to get to the truth.

Literally before the ink was dry on the Constitution the Presidents have been expanding their powers. What made Lincoln different was that he considered that he had unlimited power to act as he saw fit due to the war...sound sort of familiar...
It was his riding roughshod over the constitution that allowed the Federal Government to reign supreme over the states. From the WBTS until today there has been a steady erosion of power from the states and the people to the national government. As a result we see the behemoth that exists in DC and interferes into our lives on a daily and hourly basis. I can see the process really getting started with Mr Lincoln.
When I look at the President today and consider the trashing the constitution and especially the bill of rights has taken, I can see the work of Mr Lincoln in the background and that is a major reason why I do not revere him.

Now sit back and watch the wagons get circled as everyone jumps into the fray to "Prove" me wrong. This is what I mean about being deified.. He WILL be defended. Criticism will NOT be tolorated.

Everyone being entitled to his/her opinion...I do believe Lincoln was our greatest president. Flaws? Absolutely! Mistakes? So many to count! But, who else in the nation at that time, could've held the Union together, freed all men and still keep our nation strong in the face of the world? Which one of the men running for president in 1860 could've saved the country such an effusion of blood, kept it together and freed the slaves?
He was a man of his time. He also had other familial issues to deal with (as did Jeff. Davis).
All in all, a very interesting man! I guess that's why there are so many books written about him.
An imperfect man...an imperfect president...but, right for his time!

My first worthless piece of advice would be to never look to others for validation of your beliefs . You're educated, you've read the same books others have and reached a conclusion based on that. Trust it. But it does make for interesting discourse.

I'm well past the point where my opinion of Lincoln will change, that being that he deserves the label of a great President. I don't discount all the warts pointed out by others. I do however weigh them against others of Lincoln's time, most particularly Bell, Breckinridge and Douglas.

We often fall into a stereotypical scenario that the North's manpower and resources made the war an inevitable win for the Union. Nonsense. The greatest reserve of assets, when unused or misused means little (and I'll resist modern-day commentary here). So I've always measured Lincoln against the other three candidates he defeated. Would any of them have fought as hard to preserve the Union? IMO, no. Would any of them, even if they were inclined to do so, had the capacity to make the best use of the resources at hand? IMO, no. Would any of them have had the ability to hold a divided country together long enough to complete the task? IMO, no. Would Breckinridge, Bell, or Douglas have the ability to win the war? IMO, no.

As for how many slaves Lincoln freed, I would re-phrase the question. I would ask how many slaves were released from shackles because of the actions of Lincoln. I know what I think, and as much as I respect the opinions of disenters, I'm damn proud to admire him.

I certainly did not want to start this so that anyone would feel like they needed to circle the wagons. And also, when I am part of such a large majority of people that feel a certain way, I need to step back and make sure I'm not a follower waiting in line to drink the Kool Aid. The fact is, I don't care for the myths, nor am I naive enough to think any politician will make all the right choices all the time. I'm sure living in Springfield, it would be hard to find anybody that believed that Lincoln ever broke wind.

Some of Ed's facts I knew, some I need to look into. However, I think that if you are going to make the generalization that Lincoln shot at protesters in New York and that Lincoln shut down newspapers, you must also accept that Lincoln freed the slaves. I suppose the number would be all.

So far, nothing has led me to believe that, no matter what happened before 1860, there could not have been a better president of the United States after 1860.

TimK
sorry, but Lincoln did not free one single slave....The 13th ammendment did that after he was dead.

The Emancipation Proclimation exempted all slaves in lands controlled by the Union. The other lands were controlled by the Confederacy, a seperate country at that time and not bound by any piece of paper eminating from the US.
This is not opinion, this is fact... interestingly enough, even tho I have known this all my life, the authority I will cite is THE ABRAHAM PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND MUSEUM, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. I have actually had a lot of fun listening to my yankee friends who go to the museum for the first time and then tell me all about how the Emancipation Proclimation was not at all what they had been taught... true story!

The EP was issued for 2 reasons...first in the hopes that there would be a slave uprising in the Confederacy...it did not happen
2nd to counter the pressure being put on France and England to recognize the CSA. .. That worked!

Joe asks who of Lincoln's opponents in the 1860 election could have done a better job of preserving the union and prosecuting the war...

Well, if we are going to "what if" then would the war even have been fought if Lincoln had not been elected?

IMO Lincoln's greatness is largely hindsight and a determination by the Radical Republicans to make him a Martyr and thus have a moral reason to do what they already planned to do which was to rape the south in what came to be called reconstruction.

To me he was a politician, and a good one. He is probably the most villified president in our history. There is more propoganda out there about him than history. Those who hate him exaggerate what he did (ever try to find a list of the 300 papers he shut down? It doesn't exist; IIRC the number is only a half dozen or so.) or he's compared to Davis as the poorer President when Davis and the CS were much harsher on freedom and personal liberty. And on the other hand there are those who revere him, claiming he freed 4 millions from bondage. He didn't, the 13th Amendment did that. But he made the 13th possible. As to sainthood... the only people I see who claim that are those who despise him in an effort to further ridicule.

There is a lot of stuff out there on Lincoln, as much negative as positive. For instance it's possible to read that he was gay, was a phillanderer, was an atheist. It's also possible to read that he single handedly preserved the Union, created heaven etc. Stick around long enough and you'll see all of it and come to your own conclusions.

Mine is that he was a man w/ all the foibles and triumphs that come with being such.

There is no doubt that he was a politician and a good one...no poor politicians get to be president, wellll there are a few exceptions..Harrision comes to mind.
My main problem with Lincoln was his willingness to throw out the constitution to do what he wanted, right or wrong, during the war. Johan says there were not 300 newspapers shut down to silence criticism, but ONLY a half dozen or so.... So where is the threshold 1/2 dozen is Ok...how about 1 1/2 dozen or even 2 dozen.. A semi free press is like being semi pregnant..
How many people did Stanton have imprisoned without trials or even hearings. Habus corpus has been suspended in this country 2 times.. are we better or worse off for that suspension?
Oddly Enough, I don't particualrily dislike Lincoln the man, I despise Lincoln the myth. I do not like the policies of Lincoln and the methods he employed, but as a person, he was probably Ok...more than likely did not beat his wife, probably wasn't gay and may have had no more that 100 or so of the illnesses attributed to him.

I am firmly convinced that the martyrdom began before his body cooled and continues to this day.

I am firmly convinced that the martyrdom began before his body cooled and continues to this day.

But nobody on this board is guilty of that, at least that I've seen. Numerous replies have stated why they like him. None said anything about sainthood. "Martyrdom" of Presidents isn't a new thing, and it still goes on. We're in the middle of one right now with a certain 1980's President. It would be unfair, IMO, to let zealots color your opinion of the object of their zealotry one way or another.

Right on Joe. We all need to realize that we will not change long held personal beleifs. We do need to allow a fair and reasonable exchange of ideas. This forum is a place to allow that exchange and must be allowed to continue in a free and non-accusatory manner.

It is difficult to view 19th century actions in a 21st century mind set. We should always view those actions through (to the best of our ability) the conventional understanding at that time.

If we do not agree thats ok, but you may have an idea or thought to research or a perspective you had not previouly examined.

On martyerd presidents. How much really meaningfull civil rights legislation was passed under JFK? LBJ is seldom given the credit for the reforms passed on his watch. He also was not a perfect human, none of us are.

Lincoln was not a saint. Neither was R.E. Lee, Thomas Jackson, or U.S. Grant. They were men who made brilliant decesions, and foolish decesions that brought our history to where it is today. The end does not justify the means, but it may be the only option at the time.

If the claim of 300 is a gross exaggeration, what else is? It makes one start to question what they think they know. I know it made me start to do so. Was he perfect? A far cry from it, was he better than his contemporaries or at least no worse? Absolutely. Is he worthy of sainthood? No. Does he deserve to have all kinds of lies and misrepresentations made about him (both pro & con) so he can no longer be viewed objectively? No.

Most who despise him look at him in a vacum; the reality is compared to what Davis and the CS govt did to it's own people he's an outright angel.

He was a politician, so was Davis. I can stomach one, but the other (In my view commited gross treason) I can't.

I resisted setting foot on this thread for awhile, but an accumulation of postings has now made me, to use Pemberton's words:"Compelled to appear in print."

Lifl2003-

I must dispute your geographic theory which states that your origin of upbringing determines your level of esteem for Mr. Lincoln. I am a Texan by choice (for a few decades now). But I was born and raised in your area of the country. If your theory applied, I would revere Mr. Lincoln, but I do not. Generally speaking, my view of him is similar to that of Bama46.

Ole-

I agree with you that if the country had been split up in 1861, it would not have become a world power as soon as it did, and would probably not be the superpower it is today. In fact, if it were not for Mr. Lincoln, my predecessors would not have come here over 100 years ago, and I would not now exist. That being said, I still must judge what he did (As well as someone in the 21st century can understand someone in the 19th).

Tim K-

You might not: "Be interested in starting a fight," but that is the inevitable result of starting a thread like this. Since you like hearing different opinions, you'll get your money's worth with this thread.

Bama 46-

I agree with you that if someone else had been elected in 1860, there would have been no war in 1861. However, I believe that there would have been one eventually. The issues had been: "cooking" for several decades, and sooner or later the pot would have boiled over.

Javal 1-

I fail to see the analogy of Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Reagan. Lincoln is viewed as a martyr because he died for his cause. Those who admire Reagan view him as a wise voice from the past whose advice is now being ignored. But he is not a martyr.

Johan Steele-

I fail to understand what the CSA government: "did to its own people" beyond being generally incompetent. We can rehash our previous disagreements about the Ft. Sumter matter or the legality of secession, but it would serve no purpose. I cannot agree that secession amounted to treason.

For those still reading- here is my assessment of Mr. Lincoln. He was one of our greatest presidents. I say that because he was a skilled politician who could motivate people to do his bidding. He stuck to what he believed, and had a profound impact on history.

That being said, I cannot revere him for his disregard of the Constitution (The Merryman matter being one of many examples). I cannot revere him for waging what I consider to Have been a war of subjugation against millions of people who no longer wished to be his countrymen.